We would all agree that we need to protect kids. Not leaving a loaded shotgun on the coffee table is, in a way, protecting your kids. Our Amish brethren have other ways of doing it. Most of us are inbetween. What we (Cathy and I) see as not having friendship with the world, many others would look at as isolationism. But, we do come into contact with our neighbors, friends, people at stores, etcetcetc. Through our experiences and our interpretation of scripture, we feel that public school is friendship with the world. I do sincerely apologize for my overbearing and non-Christian sounding stance on that, in particular, but not exclusively. Cathy has repeatedly informed me of my lack of tact. We feel that using methods of BC is friendship with the world. This is not the only biblical theme involved here, but we do have a more strict interpretation of these passages, and correspondingly feel that our kids are not our kids, and that it ties in with the parable of the talents, in that we will be given much if we are good stewards. I guess I am rambling and have totally lost my point. But there are ants in our house (as I am told) and I need to finish and go home.

So anyway, I guess some would view as legalism, that’s ok. One issue tied in with this is the homechurch. This is another avenue we have pursued that accomplishes our goal (and level) of protection from ‘the world’. And yes, I agree that there can be dangers. We must be diligent, Berean, etc. to ensure that we do not fall into traps and snares of the evil one. We have a tremendous feeling about the one we are attending (they’ve been doing it forever), but know that the one down the street might be sacrificing cats and drinking cool aid. As Christians, we must always be wary of those things.

We all love our children, we all want what is best for them. There are all methods and extremes of that. I also assume that everyone would agree that whatever the Holy Spirit leads you to as far as knowledge of scripture, that is what should be obeyed. Sometimes I think it is my job to help Him along. Anyway…Ants, Blessings, Aaron

West Texas is a neat place. My wife and I met in a middle size city out there while I was taking a break from my degree and doing a co-op. It’s unique in my opinion in that it has all of the positives of a Southern region (organic cultural Christianity, deep-rooted loyalty to kin and locale, pride in who you are, friendliness, hospitality, focus on family over material gain, etc) without suffering as much from some of our specifically Southern social problems that are more acute further east.

I can easily imagine that the environment would be favorable for creating functional Christian communities.

Your comments on Israel are dead-on. I remember earlier this year when the rapture-watchers were going on to each other about getting “glory bumps” (i.e. apparently these are goosebumps initiated by geopolitical events that portend Christ’s return) and supporting Israel’s latest “security action”. Meanwhile, ancient Christian communities in Lebanon, many of them probably direct spiritual descendents of the apostles themselves, are getting bombed to the stone age by Jewish pilots supported politically by American Christians.

I would think that at least neutrality and diplomatic efforts at restoring peace would be warranted on behalf of our Lebanese brothers suffering under Israel’s indiscriminate assault against civilian populations (Christians are a significant minority, 39%, in Lebanon). Instead, we get Falwell and Robertson egging them on so Jesus can return on their preferred timetable.

Tom

Interesting… I really haven’t ever seen Romans 11 as anything but an argument against dispensationalism. Go figure. Nor did I know that your pastor agreed.

Tom, I think that overstates your argument just a very little bit. I agree that legalism and several other issues are of minor concern when the church in general is so gravely ill. Eschatology, Spiritual gifts (esp. tongues and prophecy), etc., etc. are all really secondary issues. I think that some of the “home churches” have put their fingers on a solution, but in that particular I think they’ve gone slightly too far: most seem to be withdrawing from congress with the world rather than shining in it. Not all, but most. And I think in addition to your illustration (original post), there’s another trick Old Scratch is pulling, with suprising success: distraction and dissolution. E.g.: Tim LaHaye and Hank Hannegraf, both theological welter weights, have had a long-standing (since the publication of the Left Behind books) cat fight about their end-times philosophies that I think demeans them both. Others — many, many others — sit in vaulted towers of study doing nothing more than rubbing blue theological mud in their bellybuttons. Not to mention the thousands of Christian men who are right this very second perusing the vast array of available internet porn.

What I mean is, if Satan can make us ineffectual, divert us from our main job, then he’s won before we even step onto the battlefield. Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me which schools of Christian intellectuals are right; I’ll take pride in my Proletarian ignorance and strive to do the task that has been set before me. If the opportunity presents itself, I will share my faith with as many Jews and Catholics as come my way. Jesus gave the Great Commission to us all, and while it provides interesting intellectual diversion, I don’t really think it matters which of us has his thumb on the pulse of God — for secondary issues — as long as we strive to be obedient in the things we believe God has commanded us… 1) Love the Lord with everything in you, 2) Love your fellow human as yourself, and 3) Share your faith as often as you can manage. Secondary issues are important only in their ability to facilitate or hinder those main, plain things. And too much time and effort, in my humble opinion, is spent chasing these secondaries, rather than equiping believers to do the other three.

That having been said, and in the interest of the aforementioned intellectual diversion:

I agree with Tom; I don’t think that the nation-state of Israel has any more significance today than any other body politic. The great need to continue Peter’s work in bringing the Gospel to the Jews today is, in my mind, underscored by the fact that it is, I believe, illegal to evengelize for Christ in Israel. I do know that Messianic Jews are exempted from the Law of Return, as all extant branches of Judaism (and the Supreme Court of Israel) consider them Christian and therefore decidedly NOT Jewish. (Oh… plus, apostate)

“O”: bit o’ trivia… everyone seems to be stuck on referring to Joel as “pastor”, “minister” and cetera. However, our friend does not minister, he does not pastor; he preaches. He does no counselling, no weddings, no funerals, no hospital visits. He shows up Sunday morning, makes tens of thousands of his closest friends (and more via tv and the internet) feel good about themselves — “I’m okay, you’re okay” — , then picks up his check. And then, for the rest of the week, he’s like a bad penny: a book signing here, a talk show there….

Tom, I really think I know what you need to see. Georgia and I stumbled — glory to God! — across what I think could really be a model for what the Church should be. Nobody’s perfect, therefore any assembly of human beings is inevitably flawed to some degree. But the church home that we’ve found up here is incredible. I think it’s impossible for anyone to walk into this place without feeling the permeating presence of the Spirit. I’d like to make an open, standing invitation to anyone to come and visit. (To be honest, the people kinda scare me ’cause they’re so genuine. While they are mindful of growth, it’s seen as growth of the Kingdom, not growth of this particular church…

END

Apologies for the delay… I may return to this later…

Picky, picky.

j/k

While I may have “legalistic” beliefs (I use that to mean that I have beliefs that I hold to be true, and if people disagree then I wil say i think they are wrong), I do not want to have a legalistic lifestyle - where I refuse to associate with anyone who does not hold to the same beliefs that I do. I’m not sure what that will always look like, but I think that these discussions and blogs are a good example.

Okay, I’m done! Thanks again for the discussion!

I do not believe this was the ‘first church’. In fact, I don’t think it came about til many years after Christ.

Tom, I understand what you’re saying about arguing these topics out. While I think it’s interesting to have the discussion (because I’m a ‘debater’), I also know that I’m not going to change anyone’s mind. Or, more accurately, it’s not likely that the Holy Spirit is going to rain down in a ball of fire just because I finally figured out the best way to express my viewpoint.

About the ‘literally vs. figuratively’ comment…I guess I feel like everything God’s Word says should be taken literally. I know you could give several examples that would probably blow that opinion out of the water, but I guess I just hang on to the fact that, if I do start to take certain things apart as simply ‘figurative’, what security do I have about any of it?

So, when He says “forever”, I take it to mean literally forever.

But, does that mean that interpreting something in a spiritual sense means I’m not interpreting it literally? I don’t think so. I think there are some very important spiritual truths (law vs. grace, for example) that are literal.

Ahhhhh, I feel like my words are muddy - it’s probably because it’s late and I should be in bed. Anyway, I appreciate the chance to kind of put my mind down on paper. It’s a fascinating discussion, with some very important consequences for our culture.

I hope it’s okay, but I’d like to address the comments one by one because I do have some questions.

Brian:
I agree with you that, as Christians, we have the ability and even direction to rebuke fellow Christians when they are outside that line. And yes, we should call a spade a spade — but to quote Carrie H., we must be careful to rebuke with love and grace. Even a fellow Christian who is way outside the line may have a sincere heart in wanting to serve God and minister to others — even if they are dead wrong Scripturally. We can’t know another’s heart, so I believe it’s up to us to find out intentions and that person’s reasoning/motivation before rebuking. Not that it would change the fact that they are outside the line and confrontation might be necessary, but it might and should change the means/tone of the confrontation.

As for Osteen’s “It’s not my business” comments….are those not words straight out of the pit of hell? How can it not be a pastor’s business to shepherd his flock?

Quote from Becki:
I do have to say that we should love. I am not talking about “Do whatever you want and you will go to heaven,” but love and compassion for those that do not believe. By loving others, they see God in us and reminds or shows them there is a God. I do feel we need to confront the wrongs we see around us in a loving way. We are WAY too lenient today. Sic ‘em Tom!!!
____________

Couldn’t agree more, girl!

Quote from Tom:
That one could have absolute assurance of salvation through a mere prayer is out of line with almost every historic Christian group, Protestant or Catholic.

The logic, of course, is to minimize the requirements of Christianity so as to get as many people out of hell as possible. But I would argue it’s entirely possible the evangelical church has made a grave mistake.
___________

I agree with the above. You also mentioned that we are called to be judged by our fruits. “No fruit, no salvation?”

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

I have always felt that saying a few simple words does not salvation make. I know there must be heart sincerity and true repentance in those words for them to “take,” so to speak.

I believe that at that point of crying out to God in repentance and asking for His salvation, that you are saved once and for, and that can’t change. But I also know that God doesn’t change all our ugly, dirty ways overnight. He is gentle and deals with us over time.

For instance, using myself as a neutral example: If I am being judged by my fruits, then in many ways, I am righteous. But in many ways, I’m not by the world’s standards or even by fellow Christians’ standards. I have not conquered anxiety. I have a mean streak a mile long, and I’m afraid of “church” (because of personal experiences; but not afraid of Christianity or Chrisitan people). I know God is working on me and with me in these issues, and they are serious issues. But I’m not sure I”m not sure how they affect my salvation experience.

God still sees me as righteous because of my salvation in His Son.

I’m not trying to be defensive, and I’m only using myself as an example — but I would truly like to understand what you mean by your comments. I have always had questions about this very thing.

Quote from Tom:
Now that the liberal-gospel chickens have come home to roost…
__________

Humor…I like it!!

Quote from Brian:
My point is, the delivery is not the issue. The message is. God will use us as His instruments to meet people where they are.

_____________

Is this Georgia’s Brian I’m talking to? I just wasn’t sure and wanted to ask. Anyway, I sort of disagree with your point that delivery is not the issue; the message is. Yes, of course, the TRUE message of the Gospel is paramount — but would you allow that God directs us to deliver that message in different ways to different people? And might that message look different when sharing it with a homeless man or your good guy neighbor across the street? My point is that I think both are important.

Quote from Brian:
…this requires total transparency and accountability. Not putting on a show for the crowd…
_____________

AMEN!

Quote from Brian:
the 50′ satellite image: transparency, accountability, genuine concern for the well-being of not just your brothers and sisters in Christ, but most especially for the lost. Being involved in the secular world. Giving a widow a ride to church. Or an orphan. Or your unchurched neighbor’s kids. Making yourself see the good in any situation. Praying daily. Reading and studying and meditating on Scripture every day. Talking with a fellow believer about your faith and convictions every day. (And the big one) Talking with a nonbeliever every day about your faith; telling them what you believe and explaining why you believe it. Challenging yourself to be a light to the world, maybe even challenging a nonbeliever to hold you accountable — because whether you ask them to or not, they are. Non-Christians will always keep track of what a professing Christian says and does, where they falter.
__________________

Beautiful! I love it. My only concern is that these things should come out of a reliance on God and His direction instead of an internal, (misguided in my opinion) need to perform for God.

Quote from Tom:
Basically, I distrust any major innovation in theology- I find it hard to swallow that Luther, Calvin, Augustine, etc were wrong until 1820 when Darby appeared on the scene.
________________

Tom, in this sense then, I’m interested in your thoughts and views on the Catholic church since it was the historical “first church.”

Quote from Tom:
I hope not to overstate my position, but to worry about legalism in the current relativistic environment of the church and culture would be like my worrying that my cat might decide to become a vegetarian.
__________________

Huh? I’m not following. Can you elaborate a little?

I appreciate this conversation. I love any conversation that makes me understand why I believe what I believe. Did I already say that?

To address your original entry, I first will see that I agree with almost everything you said, save the issues of dispensationalism and Israel.

I have not studied as much theology and the history of the different movements throughout the ages of Christianity, so I’m not really familiar with the pre-Darby/Scofield views of prophecy. Can you briefly elaborate on what this means to you or provide a reference for me to read that won’t make my eye twitch?

When you say you don’t believe in an imminent rapture, what does that mean exactly? Are you saying you don’t believe in a pre-tribulation rapture or something else entirely?

As for the Left Behind movie, aaaaaaggggggggghhhhhhhhh, I could not agree more. It was like watching a high school production. Bad, really, really bad.

I did like the earlier books in the series, though, and they did make me think. But I do realize that there are several schools of thought as to when the rapture might occur. What do you believe? Pre-, mid- or post-tribulation? Do you think it matters? In other words, do you think subscribing to any one of those theories really makes a difference in the end?

As for your question on whether Joel Osteen is inside or outside the line, I can’t know his heart for certain — but my perspective is that he is definitely walking the tightrope that is the line and is losing his his balancequickly, if he has not gone outside the line completely.

I most definitely believe in a non-watered down Gospel. I have seen watered-down Gospels personally, and they always end up hurting so many people before all is said and done.

However, I do know that God asks us to go out and make believers — to evangelize. I believe that evangelization looks different for different people depending on how God created them in their temperment, mental capacity, social ability, personality and more. Further, I believe that God uses all of us in the way that suits His purpose for us. So evangelization for, say, Lindsay might look completely different than evangelization for Becki. And I think God not only allows it, but creates that difference.

I’m digressing here…back to the point…I’m concerned when people automatically assume that any seeker-oriented church or ministry is automatically watered-down. I believe there are those out there that truly want to reach out to the adulterers, drug-heads, losers of the world. And evangelization to those people might look different. If you were a runaway teen who was beaten and raped by her father and ignored by her mother and felt your only means of survival was prostitution — the words used to capture your attention about the beauty, love and grace of Jesus might look different than the general “If you were to die tonight, do you know for sure you would go to Heaven?”

So, while I absolutely do not trust Joel Osteen and I feel that the message he preaches is not only dangerous but can be ungodly, I don’t necessarily
disagree with him when he says he wants to reach out to the mainstream because they are the ones who desparately need God.

My agreement with him and his ministry stops there.

What am I trying to say…I can never just get to the point. Okay, let me try.

I think that sometimes we, as the Christian body of believers, can be SO deeply ingrained in tradition and the need NOT to depart from the Gospel that we become unintenionally legalistic.

I think it is a good thing to stretch our legs a little bit and try and put ourselves in the shoes of the lost — and find out what will speak to them. It has to be the Gospel message, but it doesn’t have to be “church talk.” Sometimes church talk sounds like condemnation to people who are so desparately lost and confused.

I don’t know if I’m making sense or not. I guess I’m just trying to say that presenting the true Gospel of Christ can look different ways for different people and for different churches.

HOWEVER, there is a danger in the seeker-friendly church — and that, of course, is the line. As popularity and public exposure increases, so does the liklihood and temptation of going outside the line. Like you said, Satan is a master strategist and will use whatever means necessary.

He does attack the “modern” seeker-friendly church. But he equally attacks the traditional church as well, in my opinion.

In the end, I think there must be a balance that excludes watering down the Gospel but also excludes legalism — both of which are equally harmful and damaging in my opinion.

Now I get to read all the comments!

I’ll not engage you further on the dispensationalist question. But our positions do demonstrate the fundamental problem of theological discussions. We all pretend to take the Bible literally, while taking the passages that do not agree with our position symbolically and and taking the passages we agree with literally.

Chances are, if Christians disagree on a given issue along more or less even lines, it’s because the Bible has verses which support either side more or less equally. The theological arguments have been beat to death for centuries. I hope to avoid them, frankly because others are more qualified to make them. My unique contribution to most discussions is probably an empirical mindset.